This is a serious question. Perhaps some of you philosophers, lawyers, or anyone else smarter than I can answer it.

[Ocelot II]

1. That's a question that's been pondered for centuries.

There used to be a principle that "the King can do no wrong," with the result that most of the time kings got away with just about everything unless they pissed off a family member who wanted their job. A glaring exception was the execution of Charles I by Parliament, but England had to have a civil war to get to that (and I'm not convinced he deserved it). Anyhow, we were supposed to have rejected and got past such notions at the formation of the Republic. The new idea was that only people of good character would become leaders, and because they were of good character (and those of bad character would be controlled or weeded out by the operation of the Constitutional system). Unfortunately the Founding Fathers, men of the Enlightenment who believed in reason and science, didn't anticipate that their novel, experimental system had enough holes in it to let scoundrels slip through and take charge, or that the population itself could end up so debased as to cheer on the scoundrels and allow them to become the medieval kings who could do no wrong.

Why, indeed, should anyone obey the law when the "king" can get away with anything? Because we're not the king and he is, I guess. Just like it was in the Middle Ages.

Sucks, doesn't it?